Luck

[HawaiiMedMan]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

 

[Perrotfish]

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

Are you seeing significant variations in your score between practice tests?

 

[572776]

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

No, you are not the only one. i had a 13 point score range between my lowest and highest practice scores towards the end of my mcat studying period. got screwed on the real thing

 

[kpcrew]

no
i think i got really lucky with my exam. it was full of topics i was very familiar with

 

[mimelim]

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

Are you the only one who feels that way? No, of course not, luck is a common thing to blame by humans in many situations.

Is luck a component of any standardized test? Yes. Does it affect results significantly, no. If you don't grasp a lot of passages then you aren't prepared. Either you are innately incapable of grasping, or have not spent enough time getting ready. I'm not trying to be hard on you or mean. I think the MCAT is a poor measure of anything remotely related to becoming a physician and would never say that a less than fantastic score means you won't be a good doctor.

Yes, there may be an experimental, off the wall passage on your exam that throws everyone off. But the simple fact of the matter is the MCAT questions, like most standardized testing questions are checked statistically if they separate out the better testers from the poorer testers. Questions are routinely removed if people with overall lower scores tend to do just as well as people with higher scores (ie luck/random knowledge plays a role).

Every MCAT/board exam is going to have variability, thats a small reason why numbers aren't the ONLY thing used for admissions. I would guess that on the MCAT maybe +/-2 points total would be a normal variation. Trying to blame 'luck' is a cop out and counter productive. Feel sorry for yourself for a little bit (cry it out, get hammered, whatever), and then start focusing on things that you can control and ultimately will help you do better.

 

[NickNaylor]

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

There might be some "luck" invokved, but strong preparation makes your "luck" better.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

 

[sliceofbread136]

I made sure to be averaging 3 points higher than my target score. I ended up getting 3 points higher than my target score 😴

 

[HawaiiMedMan]

My practice scores have a 5 point variation with my lowest being a 23 and my highest a 28. I'm just shooting for a 29/30 to be honest... I'm hoping to just max out on the exam...

 

[sliceofbread136]

My practice scores are have a 5 point variation with my lowest being a 23 and my highest a 28. I'm just shooting for a 29/30 to be honest... I'm hoping to just max out on the exam...

Im guessing you have serious content gaps, and the "luck" factor is magnified because of that. Consider doing a general content review followed by a specific look at the subjects you miss the most on your practice tests.

 

[WorldChanger36]

Yeah it is a lot of luck

 

[RogueUnicorn]

No, you are not the only one. i had a 13 point score range between my lowest and highest practice scores towards the end of my mcat studying period. got screwed on the real thing

just means you were unprepared

 

[Frazier]

There might be some "luck" invokved, but strong preparation makes your "luck" better.

This

just means you were unprepared

and this.

 

[darkjedi]

I remember reading an article a while ago about how people actually have significant influence on their "luck."

Those who remain persistent and put in the energy broaden their efforts just have more chances in life for something to 'work out.' It will be the case with dating, job hunting, or even medical school applications. A lot of 'luck' is really just hard work, putting yourself out there and never giving up.

If you put in the effort to learn more of the materials, you will find yourself 'lucky' to get a passage you know more often.

 

[EnergyDrink]

Yes, it is luck. I did well on my MCAT, but my AAMC practice tests were +/- 5 up to the day of the test. (36-41)

AAMC claim that their tests average out, which means nothing to you. From their perspective, for every person scoring 5 points higher, there is a person scoring 5 points lower. So it all balances out for them.

The luck is more noticable in scores 32-45 and 3-18, because every question in these ranges correspond to ~ 1 scaled point.

 

[MedPR]

Am I the only one who feels the MCAT is just luck with getting passages you grasp?

The goal is to grasp every concept. The difference between a 38 and a 41 is luck. Anything significantly below that is based on how much you know and how well you know it.

If you get a 25 and your friend got a 35, he didn't get luckier than you. He prepared better and worked harder than you.

 

[mimelim]

Yes, it is luck. I did well on my MCAT, but my AAMC practice tests were +/- 5 up to the day of the test. (36-41)

They claim that their tests average out, which means nothing to you. From their perspective, for every person scoring 5 points higher, there is a person scoring 5 points lower. So it all balances out for them.

The luck is more noticable in scores 32-45 and 3-18, because every question in these ranges correspond to ~ 1 scaled point.

wat?

 

[EnergyDrink]

wat?

Sorry.

AAMC claims that it all averages out.

 

[MedPR]

Yes, it is luck. I did well on my MCAT, but my AAMC practice tests were +/- 5 up to the day of the test. (36-41)

AAMC claim that their tests average out, which means nothing to you. From their perspective, for every person scoring 5 points higher, there is a person scoring 5 points lower. So it all balances out for them.

The luck is more noticable in scores 32-45 and 3-18, because every question in these ranges correspond to ~ 1 scaled point.

32-45 is pushing it. I agree that the higher your score is the greater the role of "luck" is. For example, someone who is average a 39 on practice tests can get "lucky" and score a 41+ on test day or "unlucky" and score a 37. Someone averaging low 30-33 isn't going to get lucky and score a 40+.

I think 26-29, 30-32, 33-36, 37-43 are "luck" based ranges.

 

[EnergyDrink]

32-45 is pushing it. I agree that the higher your score is the greater the role of "luck" is. For example, someone who is average a 39 on practice tests can get "lucky" and score a 41+ on test day or "unlucky" and score a 37. Someone averaging low 30-33 isn't going to get lucky and score a 40+.

Starting with a score of 11-12 (per section), 1-2 questions is worth about 1 scaled point.

With a score of 6-10 (per section), 3-5 questions are required for 1 scaled point.

A score of 27 and a score of 28 might be the difference of 12 questions questions (From a 9-9-9 to a 10-9-9, for example, even though the person got more right in the latter test, a "high" 9 is still a 9).

A score of a 32 and a score of a 38 might be the difference of 6-8 questions. It is more probable to get 6 questions right than 12 by random chance, or "luck".

From what I hear, adcoms typically look at scores >34 to be equivalent, some may say >36.

 

[MedPR]

Also, just based on my personal AAMC experience (and reading lots of MCAT threads) I felt confident that I would score between a 32 and a 35 on the real thing. My AAMC average was just below a 34 (33.8 or something). I never got a 9 on any single section, and I never got more than one 10 on a single practice test. I scored one 31, three 35s, and the rest 33-34 (AAMC 3-11) and ended up with a 33 on the real one. I knew I wouldn't score less than a 10 on a section and I was confident I would get at least a 12 on at least 1 section (didn't happen) so I figured a 32 was my bottom limit. The highest section score I got was a 14, but only once so I figured the highest I would get on the real test was a 13. Anything outside the range of 10-13 would have been extremely unlucky or extremely lucky and I didn't see that happening.

 

[MedPR]

Starting with a score of 11-12 (per section), 1-2 questions is worth about 1 scaled point.

With a score of 6-10 (per section), 3-5 questions are required for 1 scaled point.

A score of 27 and a score of 28 might be the difference of 12 questions questions (From a 9-9-9 to a 10-9-9, for example, even though the person got more right in the latter test, a "high" 9 is still a 9).

A score of a 32 and a score of a 38 might be the difference of 6-8 questions. It is more probable to get 6 questions right than 12 by random chance, or "luck".

From what I hear, adcoms typically look at scores >34 to be equivalent, some may say >36.

The difference between a 9 and 10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, and 13-14 is 3-4 questions as you say. So the difference between a 27 and a 28 could be 12 questions (4 per section) or it could be as little as 1 question. 32 to 38 is only 6-8 questions if you were 1 question below the cutoff for each section. If you're on the bottom end, it could be as many as 24 questions. Also, it's unlikely that someone capable of getting a 38 consistantly is going to end up with 32... that's a huge gap.

I haven't heard anything about ADCOM opinions on MCAT scores, but judging from the median for top schools I doubt any of them view a 34 the same way they do a 43, or even a 38.